6 ms·

> the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company. Any criticism of existing hiring policy would logically

> the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company. Any criticism of existing hiring policy would logically result in the same implication. If it's fair at all to question a hiring policy, this needs to be not taken personally. Besides, presumably at one point, all the "pro-diversity" initiatives mentioned in the memo didn't exist, yet someone was able to make the case that they should. This, too, would be an implication that some of the existing colleagues shouldn't be there, because there should have been more diverse selections. Yet nobody was making lists of people they "can't possibly work with" for having that opinion.

pavlov 9y ago
... at one point, all the "pro-diversity" initiatives mentioned in the memo didn't exist, yet someone was able to make the case that they should. Yes -- the management of the company decided this. I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume that they should have free rein to debate company policies, on company networks and on company time...? A public corporation is not a democracy. Publicly second-guessing HR practices is completely outside of a software engineer's job at a place like Google. If you want to make your own rules, go start your own company. It's strange that the right is always in favor of giving corporations more power over employees -- except this time, when someone gets fired for doing their style of politics on company time.
- moduspol 9y ago
  > Yes -- the management of the company decided this. ...yet nobody took personal offense because of the implication that some of them shouldn't be there. That's the point. I'll agree that the context is questionable... but only because we don't have the details. I don't think there's anything inherently unreasonable about making a case for a change in hiring policy. If the place where it was posted was specifically used to discuss how company policies can be improved, it seems reasonable. If it's a place only visible to HR and management, it seems reasonable. If it's a place specifically for topics that are potentially political and offensive in nature, it seems reasonable (even if internal). If posts in support of (or proposing extending) the existing diversity policy were effectively allowed in that place, it seems reasonable. It's the double standard where one set of politics is approved and encouraged, but the other is fireable that is problematic.
- lhnz 9y ago
  > I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume > that they should have free rein to debate company policies, > on company networks and on company time...? The memo was in response to a request on the 'coffee beans' Google Group for input on diversity/hiring programs. A few months later he posted it into the 'skeptics' group and that is when the mob formed. Therefore, he was explicitly doing something that had been asked for. Because of this your argument is totally invalid.
  - wisty 9y ago
    Now obviously, what he did was injudicious. If you are a white male and suspect a diversity program is going to fail (and there's a lot of evidence that many of them do fail, sometimes even with negative impacts on the people they are meant to help) then you would be wise to shut up. The same would be true if a religious owner asked employees what they thought of their religion. It's best to just avoid disagreeing without showing too much interest.
    - cderwin 9y ago
      Sure, that makes sense in the short term. But if everyone did this, over a long period of time, two things would happen: (a) Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. and (b) Identity politics would achieve cultural hegemony. I agree that it would be wise to shut up if doing so had no long term effects (as in your example of a manager asking about religion), but that clearly isn't the case here. And in the case of (b), I would say that long-term effect is extremely undesirable, for both businesses and individuals.
      - wisty 9y ago
        > Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. I seriously doubt this will happen unless people criticize the failings of diversity programs, and diversity officer take this criticism seriously.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the context. It's very hard for an outsider to judge what is appropriate for a forum called "skeptics". In principle I would assume that same rules of conduct apply there as elsewhere in the company, but I wouldn't know.

pavlov 9y ago

... at one point, all the "pro-diversity" initiatives mentioned in the memo didn't exist, yet someone was able to make the case that they should. Yes -- the management of the company decided this. I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume that they should have free rein to debate company policies, on company networks and on company time...? A public corporation is not a democracy. Publicly second-guessing HR practices is completely outside of a software engineer's job at a place like Google. If you want to make your own rules, go start your own company. It's strange that the right is always in favor of giving corporations more power over employees -- except this time, when someone gets fired for doing their style of politics on company time.

moduspol 9y ago
> Yes -- the management of the company decided this. ...yet nobody took personal offense because of the implication that some of them shouldn't be there. That's the point. I'll agree that the context is questionable... but only because we don't have the details. I don't think there's anything inherently unreasonable about making a case for a change in hiring policy. If the place where it was posted was specifically used to discuss how company policies can be improved, it seems reasonable. If it's a place only visible to HR and management, it seems reasonable. If it's a place specifically for topics that are potentially political and offensive in nature, it seems reasonable (even if internal). If posts in support of (or proposing extending) the existing diversity policy were effectively allowed in that place, it seems reasonable. It's the double standard where one set of politics is approved and encouraged, but the other is fireable that is problematic.
lhnz 9y ago
> I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume > that they should have free rein to debate company policies, > on company networks and on company time...? The memo was in response to a request on the 'coffee beans' Google Group for input on diversity/hiring programs. A few months later he posted it into the 'skeptics' group and that is when the mob formed. Therefore, he was explicitly doing something that had been asked for. Because of this your argument is totally invalid.
- wisty 9y ago
  Now obviously, what he did was injudicious. If you are a white male and suspect a diversity program is going to fail (and there's a lot of evidence that many of them do fail, sometimes even with negative impacts on the people they are meant to help) then you would be wise to shut up. The same would be true if a religious owner asked employees what they thought of their religion. It's best to just avoid disagreeing without showing too much interest.
  - cderwin 9y ago
    Sure, that makes sense in the short term. But if everyone did this, over a long period of time, two things would happen: (a) Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. and (b) Identity politics would achieve cultural hegemony. I agree that it would be wise to shut up if doing so had no long term effects (as in your example of a manager asking about religion), but that clearly isn't the case here. And in the case of (b), I would say that long-term effect is extremely undesirable, for both businesses and individuals.
    - wisty 9y ago
      > Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. I seriously doubt this will happen unless people criticize the failings of diversity programs, and diversity officer take this criticism seriously.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the context. It's very hard for an outsider to judge what is appropriate for a forum called "skeptics". In principle I would assume that same rules of conduct apply there as elsewhere in the company, but I wouldn't know.